Thursday, December 07, 2006

Some Questions with Dr. Dog

Dr. Dog took me completely by surprise last year. I had almost lost hope for bands whose lyric sheet ever includes "ooh-ahh" or "shoo-wop" as a verse, phrase, or chorus. Upon hearing the first track, "The World May Never Know" off of their 2005 album, "Easybeat", I knew that this was not only a glaring exception to what I had written off, but also a remarkably good band. Rarely does a song leap out and hit me over the head so immediately. I played the album for many friends and most (the smart ones anyway) agreed that it was so familiar and yet like no other typically unimaginative new Pop-Rock band.

Dr. Dog could somehow sound like the best slide solo off of a George Harrison record, The Great Lost Kinks Album, Neil Young's flawless Seventies output, and every other obvious and not-so-obvious musical moment from the great album period between 1967 and 1975. Many bands mine this era and hope to accomplish much with an annoyingly smug set of retro-isms. Unfortunately, cute references alone are not enough to sustain a career, much less an album or live set. I caught them at South By Southwest in March and wondered if they could match the charm and beauty of their records. I was surprised again to find that they didn't merely crank out their set in an overly rehearsed fashion but teetered on imploding under the weight of their own enthusiasm. I witnessed a performance by them so triumphant, I was booing Centromatic on my way out of the club. There is an extremely well thought out and beautifully executed anachronistic quality to Dr. Dog's music that I wish were much easier to find in music today. Judging from the phone conversation I had with one of Dr. Dog's main songwriters, Scott McMicken, he probably feels the same way:

You were fairly unknown at the beginning of South by Southwest earlier this year and I noticed that by your last performance at Red Eyed Fly, I believe, that the excitement and the crowd had grown quite a bit. So did South by Southwest turn out how you thought it would, or better than you hoped?

Certainly better than we hoped. I didn't really have much perspective on what the whole thing was to begin with. And then, see, last year...well, this most recent one was our second trip there. And the first year, the year before last, there was even more of an arc to it. I mean we went there with literally no recognition and by the last show we had definitely seen a growth in the amount of people who were coming to see us and there were some blurbs in the paper, the South By Southwest paper. And that's where we met James Endecott and got hooked up with Rough Trade.

Oh, wow.

Yeah. And that's when we first met with who we ultimately signed a publishing deal with, which is Chrysalis. So like...the South By Southwest Festival, it turns out, can be a really awesome thing for a band if you go down there and really work your ass off and play as much as you can. Which we did because that's sort of how we approach everything. But I certainly never guessed that it would have lead to as much positive reinforcement as it has.

So you made noticeable improvements on the recording fidelity of your music with each successive release. Have you improved the fidelity out of style? Or were the lower fidelity recordings out of necessity?

They were out of necessity but that was never a compromise. I mean, we were never upset about that in the least. But as with everything that we do, and especially I try to do, is to take on new challenges and new opportunities whenever we get the chance. So, you know, when we got hooked up with Rough Trade and that was the first time we ever made an album where somebody was giving us money to do it, the first thing we did was buy a new tape machine that was capable of recording twenty four tracks rather than just eight. Which is what we'd been dealing with. The fidelity that exists on "Toothbrush" and on "Easybeat" is, in my opinion, certainly ideal. I love the way they sound and that's why we made them sound that way. So our improvements in the studio had more to do with just having more tracks. And ultimately we just wanted to do more overdubs, do more with vocals, do more with percussion and everything that we've never been able to have the room for. But there was definitely still an ear towards keeping it warm and typically smaller than the average modern rock record. Just more gentle overall. But, on the other hand, I do acknowledge that our newest best recordings, the EP and the new album, are quite a leap in fidelity. But I think they're still sort of in the same family, fidelity wise. I think they still resemble... I just hope that it sounds like the next logical step for us to have made because that's what it was for us. It was like, "Okay, we had eight tracks, now we have twenty four. What does Dr. Dog do when they have twenty four tracks?" And that's what we did, you know?

So is the next full length going to be full-on big studio or is it going to be just pretty much what "Takers and Leavers" sounds like?

The next full length was recorded in the same studio as "Takers and Leavers". So it's very similar. And two of the tracks on "Takers and Leavers" are on the album. "Ain't it Strange" and "Die Die Die" are on the upcoming album. So that should give you a pretty good idea about what the record sounds like. It's by no means a big studio. It's still our homespun kind of take on things. It's just that we have a bigger room. We used to be in a basement and we moved to a warehouse, a bigger room and sixteen more tracks. Still the same microphones. Still the same process of mixing that went in to everything else. It's still kind of in our hands. And by conventional standards our studio is by no means a big studio, but we just tried to get the sound as cool as we could.

So you mentioned the big sound of modern rock records. What is it about most modern rock recordings that bothers you? Because a lot of them bother me too, actually. But what is it that bothers you about them?

Well, I just don't find the sound of a lot of modern rock records to be relatable. Like I don't hear their representation of instruments as accurate or even realistic. I think everything is so overblown and I think it's all just to sort of show off technological muscle. I think when I hear that shit I'm not...I don't know. The way they stuff fifteen microphones all over a drum kit. I mean on a very basic level I just feel like that is an unrealistic experience of a drum kit. At no point are you hearing...at no point do you have your ear two inches from the tom that's being hit. And I just think that there's something not natural about it and just in terms of what instruments typically sound like to me just being played in a room. For instance, to illustrate the point further, when we record drums we just walk around the kit until you find a cool place where you think it sounds good and just put the microphone there and therefore, the microphone becomes the person. To me that seems like the most logical way to replicate what a drum kit would sound like if you're standing in a room listening to it. So that's everything. I just think that a lot of modern rock records put way too much emphasis on this sheen. I think that a lot of times that takes over the amount of thinking that goes into playing smart parts that work well from one instrument to the next and nice textures and stuff. I mean in this kind of hypothetical modern rock record we're talking about. It just seems they tend to lack any kind of nuance and they just try to go right for the gut. I don't know really when that happened to pop music. I think that it's just like kind of everything else about the industry which is just as propelled by money, I suppose. And the next thing. Everybody's looking for the next thing constantly and people don't seem to be too critical of technology. But you know, also it's kind of like: to each his own. We just happen to be five people who are far more comfortable with far less choices than the average band from what I can gather. I mean we'd be much happier in an empty room with a four track and a couple of acoustic instruments than we would be in a state of the art digital studio with infinite tracks and banks and banks of effects, and preamps, and compressors. I just can't function in a situation like that, because to me the bulk of the thought seems to need to be filtered more through the song writing and the arrangement of the songs and the nuances rather than how you're gonna get the maximum amount of power out of every hit on the song or something. It's stuff to think about. I definitely get asked about this a lot. This whole "hi-fi/lo-fi" thing. I totally see why people call us a "lo-fi" band. I'm just not exactly sure I understand it but maybe it's just that in a perfect world I don't think the term "lo-fi" would really be necessary. When something sounds right, I feel like it's hi-fi. If it gives you everything you want out of it that's kind of what I consider hi-fi.

Actually a recording engineer friend of mine who had heard "Easybeat" said when he first heard it, it was the first record that had made sense to him in years. As far as the recording goes.

Oh, that's awesome. That's cool. We definitely get a lot of props from people in the recording industry, for sure. Almost more than anyone else. I think that's kind of nice. I think in general that we're part of a larger group of people that's starting to maybe reassess the way that they think how albums should sound. Of course I'm no expert on any of this shit I'm talking about but I have noticed that more bands that I'm friends with and encounter are recording their own albums and taking that power back. I mean I've been in bands in the past where you save a couple thousand bucks and find the nearest twenty dollar an hour studio and go in there and just get depressed pretty much immediately. You have no ability to translate the sound you have in your head to the tape or computer or whatever. And you're just kind of at the mercy of some guy who by and large probably doesn't have any real faith in the fact that bands or musicians know what's right for their songs or something. I only say that from first hand experience. I think it's really important for musicians to learn how to record well if they're recording something that means anything to them. It's really not that hard, it just takes a little trial-and-error and a little bit of confidence, I suppose.

I thought "Easybeat" was the best record of 2005. Pitchforkmedia butchered it and then for some inexplicable reason they reported your deal with Rough Trade in a very negative light. They suggested that your fans must be drunk in order to like your music and that New York Times reporter, Kelefa Sanneh must be a friend of yours just because he wrote favorably about you. Have you found yourself wondering: "Why all the animosity?"

Yeah, I can't lie, my gut reaction to that kind of stuff is always just kind of like, "Fuck you" or whatever. But I know that deep down it's irrelevant and that there's so many factors of how a band's going to be perceived. And something like Pitchfork, to me, totally represents that perspective on indie rock or modern independent music, something that is so fragmented by all these sort of classifications. All of this outside information seems to factor in so heavily on how a band's going to be judged. From the clothes they wear, to the type of people who like them, to what their history is. If it looks they've gotten lucky or if it looks like they're the underdog or whatever. I just know there's a million factors like that buzzing around in the world that Pitchfork creates. So ultimately it's very easy to pass off as irrelevant to us because if we put that much stock in one review, however powerful it is, we'd be in sort of rough shape. I mean we've gotten tons of other great reviews. Just being at shows and talking to people has a lot more of an impact on your sense of what people think you do than one review in Pitchfork. I'm kind of proud of the fact that Pitchfork doesn't like us, because whether or not I was even in a band that got talked about by Pitchfork I'm fairly certain I would disapprove of that whole thing or at least think very critically about it. So it makes sense to me that if we as people don't really approve what they're doing, then they as people shouldn't approve of what we're doing. Something about that seems to make sense. But, yeah, I just think it's kind of a shame. It's even kind of a shame when they help a band out so much. One review from them that can take a band that's maybe toured for a total of two weeks and they get this great review on Pitchfork and then they go out and they're selling out houses all over the place. In a way that's awesome. But there's also something kind of unfortunate about that. As long as you're taking for granted that that band would have continued to progress and get to that point slower and build a fan-base more organically. I mean, if you rise that quickly, you can easily fall that quickly. Versus, if you went out and just played in front of people for a long time. Or even just having your CD out there, floating around and have people talking about it for a long time. I think you create a stronger foundation for yourself that at some point will never go away. I mean I look at the band, My Morning Jacket. That's a perfect model of how smart bands can be just in how they approach their vision. I mean every single album from "Tennessee Fire" to "At Dawn" to "It Still Moves", now to "Z" is one logical step forward. On top of that, just pounding the pavement and playing incredible shows for people all the time. At this point they're set. I think the fans that they have now will be their fans until the day they're dead. No matter even if they put out a shitty record or what. I think that's really important. That's why I say that even the kind of positive aspects of Pitchfork have a double edge to them.

I know that you've been repeatedly pegged with sounding like this or that famous sixties group. Compared to a lot of other working bands today that might have similar influences or play pop songs I think you guys rock a lot more forcefully live and rock more in the live setting than even the carefree abandon on your records suggest. Besides what people perceive as obvious influences on your recorded music do you have any live influences that inspired the energy in your live set?

Live influences?

Yeah.

Oh, definitely man. My Morning Jacket, again. They were really our first experience with what a live band is, I feel like. In the sense of they're the first band that took us on tour. We'd never been on tour before. We'd barely even played around Philly. Literally: barely. We were just exposed to what a touring band is and how a touring band can operate through what I feel is the best model for that. Like I just said about them, they're amazing. They work really hard. And they play every show like it's their last show. They respect their audience and because of that they want it to be great. And because they want it to be great it displays that they love what they're doing and since they love what they're doing every night, it's going to be a fantastic show. I mean I've gone and seen a lot of awesome shows in my life. I've seen tons of great bands and everything but I have to list them as the most influential only because they were our first direct experience as a band with another band. Do you know what I mean?

Yeah.

Like I wasn't there seeing them every night in the audience. We were there, theoretically, to do the same thing they were doing. They definitely set a standard for me. I love them and I love our friends, The Teeth, back home, a phenomenal live band. And Architecture in Helsinki, which we toured with, taught me a whole lot about playing live and how each individual musician can sync collectively towards a greater sound. I mean they have just so many small little sounds. There are eight or nine people in the band. A whole song might go by where one person hits a triangle every minute and a half or whatever but it was just really inspiring to see that kind of lack of ego in a live performance where what seemed to matter most to them was the overall output of the sound rather than what they were feeling as individuals. That's a tough thing to learn, that kind of restraint and that sort of taste live. I've certainly been the type of musician who feels like you want to carry everything and you want your guitar to be the loudest and that's what you're thinking through in the parts that you're playing. But you're going to have to think outside of that and let everything blend together. Architecture in Helsinki definitely taught me a lot about that.

So this is the last question. There is so much going on with the harmonies and everyone contributing that it's sometimes hard to tell who probably wrote what. How is the songwriting divided by the group?

Oh, well the songs are all written by either me or Toby [Leaman]. And in 99% of the cases , if he wrote it he's singing lead. If I wrote it I'm singing lead. There are a few where it's two or three part harmony the whole time so you might not have a sense of who actually wrote it. But that's your best clue: just basically who's singing lead. It's very easy for me to tell by our recordings who's who, obviously, but I have had people say that on the recordings sometimes you can't tell. Or they thought songs that Toby was singing were actually me singing. We don't even really write together. We definitely pay a lot of attention to each other. If he gets into a new thing in song writing, I'm definitely paying a lot of attention. He's by far the biggest influence on my song writing. We bring basically completed songs to practice or to the studio and then just help each other sort of chop them up or add little bits here and there. In a couple examples I've had half a song, and he's had half a song, and it worked out that you could just tape them together and it sounded cool and that's happened a couple of times. Or helping each other with gaps in the lyrics from time to time. But by and large we write independently and just submit them to total criticism.

Dr. Dog plays a free in-store at Good Records tomorrow at 4:00 PM. They open for The Black Keys tomorrow night at The Granada. Their newest release is an EP, "Takers and Leavers".

I LOVE this band. I heard their track "The World May Never Know" via insound in spring 2005, and I bought the record that night. i think i listened to that song like 25 times in a row that night. I rarely listen to a song or album like that. I can't wait to see them twice tomorrow.

They must have significantly improved since 2005 because I saw them at Trees when they opened up for Architecture in Helsinki and they sucked horribly, they sounded like high school stoners doing their best Zeppelin imitation.

I'd never heard of Dr. Dog until this interview. Usually, I don't care much for the bands you, Defensive Listening, feature (I do listen to them all); however, I really enjoy Dr. Dog. Their songs are some of my favorite I've heard all year long. Thank you for writing about them.

Hi, i was looking over your blog and didn'tquite find what I was looking for. I'm looking fordifferent ways to earn money... I did find this though... a place where you can make some nice extra cash secret shopping. I made over $900 last month having fun!make extra money now

Hi, i was looking over your blog and didn'tquite find what I was looking for. I'm looking fordifferent ways to earn money... I did find this though... a place where you can make some nice extra cash secret shopping. I made over $900 last month having fun!make extra money now

Hi, i was looking over your blog and didn'tquite find what I was looking for. I'm looking fordifferent ways to earn money... I did find this though... a place where you can make some nice extra cash secret shopping. I made over $900 last month having fun!make extra money now